coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
7.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Durrës, Albania.
8.  The applicant was employed by the National Employment Service (NES) as the Director of Durrës Vocational Training Centre (“the Durrës VTC”). The NES is responsible to the Ministry of Labour. On 9 July 2005 the applicant was dismissed. Considering his dismissal arbitrary, he challenged it before the Durrës District Court. The applicant did not seek an award of pecuniary damage.
9.  In its judgment of 27 September 2005, the Durrës District Court found the dismissal void due to a flawed procedure and ordered the applicant to be reinstated. On 1 November 2005 the NES filed an appeal with the Durrës Court of Appeal, (“the Court of Appeal”).
10.  By judgment of 12 December 2005, the Durrës Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible as having been filed out of time. That judgment became final as no appeal was filed with the Supreme Court.
11.  For the purposes of executing the Durrës District Court’s judgment of 27 September 2005, an execution writ was issued by the court on 22 December 2005 pursuant to Articles 510 (a) and 511 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below).
12.  On 23 January 2006 the bailiff’s office imposed a fine on the Minister of Labour concerning the failure to enforce the Durrës District Court’s judgment. To date, the Durrës District Court’s judgment of 27 September 2005 has not been executed.
13.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Durrës District Court requesting payment of salary arrears since 9 July 2005.
14.  On 24 October 2006 the Durrës District Court found in the applicant’s favour and ordered the NES to pay the applicant his salary from 9 July 2005 until the date of his actual reinstatement.
15.  On 14 June 2007 the Durrës Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by the NES. The NES appealed to the Supreme Court. According to the information before the Court, it appears that these proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court.
16.  On 6 December 2006, at the applicant’s request, the Durrës District Court issued an execution writ in respect of its judgment of 24 October 2006.
17.  On an unspecified date the NES sought the immediate suspension of execution. The Durrës District Court decided that the case fell outside its territorial jurisdiction and transferred the case file to the Tirana District Court.
18.  On 31 January 2008 the Tirana District Court dismissed the NES action. On an unspecified date the NES appealed. It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Tirana Court of Appeal.
3.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Şırnak.
4.  On 8 June 2004 the applicant, an artillery captain at the Turkish Armed Forces, brought a case before the Supreme Military Administrative Court against the Ministry of Defence for the annulment of his transfer to a different garrison.
5.  In their pleadings the Ministry of Defence argued that the applicant’s transfer had been lawful and submitted certain confidential documents in support of their arguments for the Supreme Military Administrative Court’s examination under Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602. These documents were not communicated to the applicant.
6.  On 15 February 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court held that the applicant’s appointment had not been contrary to law and rejected his request. In taking this decision the Supreme Military Administrative Court relied on, inter alia, the confidential documents submitted by the Ministry of Defence by virtue of Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602.
7.  On 26 April 2005 the applicant’s rectification request was rejected by the Supreme Military Administrative Court.
3.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Mersin.
4.  The applicant was discharged from the Turkish Armed Forces in 2003 due to a medical condition and the Retired Civil Servants’ Fund (Emekli Sandığı) granted him simple disability benefits.
5.  Subsequently, the applicant lodged a request with OYAK, the pension fund of the armed forces, for full and permanent disability benefits.
6.  On 25 July 2003 OYAK rejected the applicant’s request, holding that he did not qualify for such benefits under the relevant law (Article 26 of Law no. 205). The applicant requested the annulment of this decision from the Supreme Military Administrative Court.
7.  On 10 June 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court held a hearing where it rejected the applicant’s request. The written opinion of the principal public prosecutor submitted to the Supreme Military Administrative Court was not communicated to the applicant. No classified documents or information had been submitted by the administration to the Supreme Military Administrative Court as evidence during the proceedings.
8.  The applicant requested the rectification of this judgment. On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s rectification request.
5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Budapest.
6.  In November 2003 the Budapest I/XII District Public Prosecutor charged the applicant with disorderly conduct and vandalism, punishable by three years of imprisonment.
7.  The Budapest Central District Court held hearings on 22 January, 28 March and 28 April 2004. On the latter date it found the applicant guilty of vandalism and fined him 90,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 337 euros (EUR)). The District Court relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of an expert, and the testimony of witnesses and the applicant.
8.  The applicant appealed, seeking acquittal on the ground that the judgment was ill-founded, and requested the court to hold a public hearing. The Budapest Chief prosecutor also appealed, and requested the court to quash the first-instance judgment and remit the case to the District Court because of shortcomings in the finding of facts.
9.  The Budapest Regional Court notified the applicant’s lawyer that it would determine the appeal sitting in camera. In reply, the lawyer put forward supplementary arguments and again requested the court to hold a public hearing.
10.  On 7 April 2005 the Regional Court held a session in camera and upheld the applicant’s conviction. The applicant, his lawyer and the prosecutor were absent.
11.  The Regional Court reviewed the entirety of the proceedings and established their lawfulness. Furthermore, it considered that the findings of fact by the first-instance court were not ill-founded within the meaning of section 351(2) of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, and were thus suitable for an appellate review without taking further evidence.
12.  However, the Regional Court, relying on the existing case file, modified the findings of fact as established by the first-instance court. When delivering its judgement, it relied on the modified facts.
3.  The applicant, who was born in 1980 and lives in Kayseri, was a student at a military academy. At the time of his registration at this academy, his father had signed a promissory note for the reimbursement of the applicant’s educational expenses in the event of his leaving the school, due to expulsion or otherwise.
4.  In March 2003 the applicant was expelled from the military academy following a secret security investigation conducted by the Ministry of Defence into him and his family. The applicant was not notified of the specific reasons for his expulsion.
5.  Subsequently, the applicant asked the Supreme Military Administrative Court to annul the expulsion decision. During the proceedings, he did not have access to the classified documents and information submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Supreme Military Administrative Court in support of its decision to expel him from the military academy.
6.  On 10 December 2003 the Supreme Military Administrative Court refused to annul the expulsion decision. It stated that information and documents the confidentiality of which was required and necessitated for the performance of military service could not be disclosed to the applicant. The Court further emphasised that it was not bound by the classification made by the administration and that it made its own assessment as to whether the confidentiality of the documents was justified in each case. The written opinion submitted by the principal public prosecutor to the Supreme Military Administrative Court during the proceedings was not communicated to the applicant.
7.  On 7 April 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s rectification request, which decision was served on the applicant on 20 April 2004.
8.  The Ministry of Defence subsequently filed an action with the Kayseri Civil Court against the applicant for the reimbursement of his educational expenses. On 3 May 2004 the Kayseri Civil Court ordered the applicant to pay the Ministry of Defence 5,050,500,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 3,000 euros (EUR)), plus interest running from 8 April 2003.
3.  The applicant, who is a retired non-commissioned officer, was born in 1959 and lives in Osmaniye.
4.  On 29 June 2002 the applicant attempted to enter the social facilities of the Osmaniye Gendarmerie Commandership, which was a right granted to him under Article 664 § 4 of the Internal Service Regulation of the Turkish Armed Forces (“the Internal Service Regulation”) as a retired non‑commissioned officer. He was, however, not admitted on the basis of an order of the Turkish General Staff, prohibiting him from entering any social facilities of the Armed Forces. The applicant was not provided any further information as to the reason for this prohibition.
5.  The applicant subsequently filed an action against the Ministry of Defence with the Supreme Military Administrative Court and requested the annulment of the order of the Turkish General Staff. The applicant emphasised that he was not able to duly defend himself against the impugned decision due to his lack of access to the secret information and documents relied on by the Turkish General Staff.
6.  In its reply, the Ministry of Defence stated that the applicant had been banned from using the said facilities for engaging in activities proscribed under Article 664 § 4 (c) of the Internal Service Regulation. It submitted certain classified documents in support of its decision.
7.  On 22 April 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request. It stated that information and documents the confidentiality of which was required and necessitated for the performance of military service could not be disclosed to the applicant. The court further emphasised that it was not bound by the classification made by the administration and that it made its own assessment as to whether the confidentiality of the documents was justified in each case.
8.  On 16 September 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s rectification request
3.  The applicant, was born in 1970 and lives in Nevşehir, was a civil servant working for the Turkish Armed Forces at the time of the events giving rise to this application.
4.  On 10 September 2003 the Supreme Disciplinary Council of the Ministry of Defence decided to dismiss the applicant from service for misconduct in office following his criminal conviction by a martial law court.
5.  The applicant subsequently requested the annulment of the dismissal decision from the Supreme Military Administrative Court.
6.  In its reply to the submissions of the applicant, the Ministry of Defence stated that the applicant had been dismissed in accordance with the relevant provisions of Law no. 657 on Civil Servants and the regulation on disciplinary councils and superiors concerning civil servants employed in the Turkish Armed Forces (Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinde Görevli Devlet Memurları Disiplin Kurulları ve Disiplin Amirleri Yönetmeliği). The Ministry of Defence also submitted certain documents and information to the Supreme Military Administrative Court, which were classified as “secret documents” under Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602 on Supreme Military Administrative Court. These documents were not disclosed to the applicant.
7.  On 24 June 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request. The written opinion submitted by the principal public prosecutor to the Supreme Military Administrative Court during the proceedings was not communicated to the applicant.
8.  On 16 September 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s rectification request.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Bydgoszcz.
5.  On 13 July 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of physical and mental cruelty towards his common-law wife. On 16 July 2005 he was detained on remand. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and documents. The court also relied on the risk that he might tamper with evidence, since the victim was his next of kin.
6.  On 12 October 2005 the Bydgoszcz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) extended his detention until 13 January 2006. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. It also relied on the risk that he might tamper with evidence.
7.  On 4 January 2006 the court extended the applicant’s detention until 13 April 2006. On 10 April 2006 it ordered that the term should be extended until 13 July 2006. The court referred to the grounds for detention listed in the previous decisions.
8.  In the meantime, the District Court had proceeded with the trial. The hearings were held on 29 November 2005, 4 January, 6 February and 8 May 2006. The court heard evidence from 12 witnesses and in the course of the proceedings two expert reports were given.
9.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant made numerous, unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release him and decisions extending his detention.
10.  On 11 May 2006 the Bydgoszcz District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment. He appealed.
11.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on several occasions.
12.  On 5 January 2007 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the trial court’s judgment.
13.  On 17 August 2007 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as being manifestly ill-founded.
14.  On 2 October 2006 the applicant complained that the Court’s letter of 15 September 2006 had been censored by the authorities. The envelope of this letter, produced by the applicant, bears a red stamp that read: “Censored” (Cenzurowane).
4.  On 31 July 1996 the applicant was run over by a motorist, Mr A.I. As a result of the accident, her clothes were damaged and became unusable. Both of her arms, her right ear and her right leg were bruised. Shortly after that she was admitted to a hospital, where she spent a week, and was found to have a broken ankle and a traumatic brain injury.
5.  After criminal proceedings which were later converted to administrative-penal ones, in a judgment of 10 March 1997 the Sofia District Court found A.I. responsible for the accident and fined him.
6.  On 4 June 1997 the applicant brought a civil action against A.I. and his insurer. She sought 500,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL)[1] for pecuniary and BGL 2,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
7.  Between October 1997 and March 1999 the Sofia District Court held ten hearings, the first five of which were adjourned because A.I. had not been properly summoned. The court gave judgment on 19 April 1999, awarding the applicant BGL 75,000 compensation for pecuniary and BGL 266,000 for non‑pecuniary damage. It found that there was no valid insurance contract between the insurance company and A.I. and for this reason held that the compensation was due solely by the latter.
8.  On 29 April 1999 the applicant appealed, arguing that she had suffered more serious injuries and that the compensation awarded was inadequate. A.I. also appealed. As the Sofia District Court, through which the appeals had been filed, did not process them until October 2000, the applicant made a complaint about delays. As a result, on 10 November 2000 the chairman of the Sofia City Court instructed the district judge in charge of the case to send it without delay to the Sofia City Court for examination.
9.  After holding a hearing on 7 June 2001, in a judgment of 11 July 2001 the Sofia City Court partly reversed the lower court’s judgment and found that A.I.’s insurance company was liable. The court also increased the award in respect of non‑pecuniary damage to 350 Bulgarian levs (BGN). However, the applicant’s contention that her skull had been fractured in the car accident and that this had resulted in permanent injuries was considered unsubstantiated, as no evidence in support of that had been submitted.
10.  On 10 August 2001 the applicant appealed on points of law. In November 2002, while the proceedings were pending, the 1952 Code of Civil Procedure was amended and provided that henceforth the Supreme Court of Cassation had jurisdiction to hear only cases in which the amount in issue was higher than BGN 5,000. The amendment entered into force with immediate effect and was applicable to pending cases. Accordingly, in a decision of 25 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation terminated the proceedings on the ground that the amount of the compensation claimed was below the minimum for which that court had jurisdiction to hear cases. The applicant was informed of the decision in a letter of 9 December 2002. She did not appeal against it.
4.  The applicants were born in 1944 and 1935 respectively and live in Popovo.
5.  By a mayor's order of 9 May 1988 the applicants' house in Popovo was expropriated with a view to developing the land as a residential area. The order was based on sections 95 and 98(1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of 1973 (“the TUPA”) and provided that the applicants were to be compensated with a two-room flat in a building which the municipality intended to construct.
6.  In 1989 the house expropriated from the applicants was demolished.
7.  By an order of 19 April 1991, under section 103 of the TUPA, the mayor indicated the exact future flat with which the applicants were to be compensated. Its surface was to be 73 square metres.
8.  On an unspecified date in 1991 the municipal authorities opened with the State Savings Bank a blocked housing bank account in the name of the applicants and deposited an amount corresponding to the value of their expropriated real property.
9.  The construction of the building where the applicants' apartment was to be located started in 1994.
10.  For an unspecified period the applicants lived in their son's flat (their son was allotted a municipal flat). Later they rented other accommodation and in 1996 were housed in a makeshift dwelling provided by the municipality.
11.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the applicants brought an action for damages against the Popovo municipality for wrongful failure to fulfil its obligations to build and provide them with a flat.
12.  On 8 January 2001 they complained to the President of the National Assembly about the failure of the municipality to provide them with a flat. On 27 March 2001 they filed a complaint with the President of the Republic.
13.  In a final judgment of 27 May 2003 the courts awarded the applicants 6,750 new Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of approximately 3,500 euros (EUR), in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The indemnification covered the period 1991-2000. The courts held that the municipality's failure to provide the applicants with a flat was unlawful and that the situation of uncertainty had caused them to suffer mental anguish.
14.  In another judgment - of 31 August 2005 - the applicants' claim for pecuniary damages (loss of rent which they would have received had they let the flat) was dismissed as the courts found that this was speculative.
15.  In January 2006 the applicants accepted an offer by the municipality to be compensated with an apartment in a different building. The new flat which had a surface area of 64 square metres, was delivered to the applicants in August 2007.
16.  In September 2007 the applicants brought an action against the Popovo municipality. They claimed BGN 7,940, which represented the difference between the value of the flat allotted to them originally and the flat they received eventually. It appears that these proceedings are still pending.
3.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Istanbul.
4.  On 20 August 1996 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP‑C (Devrimci Halk Kurtuluş Partisi-Cephesi; the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front), as well as aiding and abetting the said organisation.
5.  On 3 September 1996 the applicant was remanded in custody.
6.  On 6 December 1996 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, along with other persons, charging him with membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 1 of the former Criminal Code.
7.  On 20 May 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty of activities carried out for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. The applicant was sentenced to death; his sentence was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment.
8.  On 30 September 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on the ground that the latter had failed to specify the provision of the Criminal Code under which the applicant had been found guilty. The Court of Cassation held that the applicant had been unlawfully held accountable for an event which had not been included in the bill of indictment of 6 December 1996.
9.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was therefore transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.
10.  On 31 March 2006 the applicant was released pending trial.
11.  According to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.
3.  The first applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Ankara. The second applicant is a construction company registered in Turkey.
4.  On 10 October 1990 the applicant company brought a civil action before the Seventh Chamber of the Ankara Civil Court against the National Water Board (Devlet Su İşleri) to recover the monies owed to it under a construction contract (case no. 1990/584).
5.  On 27 December 1993 the Ankara Civil Court awarded the applicant company's claim in full, plus interest.
6.  On 18 November 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on procedural and substantive grounds.
7.  On 16 March 1995 the applicant company brought an additional action against the National Water Board before the Eighth Chamber of the Ankara Civil Court in relation to the latter's default in certain other financial undertakings under the aforementioned construction contract (case no. 1995/255).
8.  On 28 September 1995 the Eighth Chamber of the Ankara Civil Court decided to join case no. 1995/255 with case no. 1990/584 pending before the Seventh Chamber of the Ankara Civil Court.
9.  On 15 December 1998, 12 September 2000 and 5 July 2001 the Ankara Civil Court rendered three separate judgments on the case, all of which were quashed by the Court of Cassation on 20 May 1999, 6 February 2001 and 27 December 2001 respectively on procedural and substantive grounds, including erroneous calculations, resulting in the remittal of the case to the Ankara Civil Court each time.
10.  On 19 April 2002 the Ankara Civil Court examined the case for the fifth time and awarded the applicant company's claim in part, together with interest.
11.  On 6 June 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court with certain minor technical amendments.